JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.04.2001 passed by the learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal no. 135 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Forest Case No. 2 of 1998 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 20 of the Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act 1984 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count has been affirmed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is neither the owner of the seized wood nor is the owner of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the presence of the petitioner in the place of occurrence. It has been submitted that the timber in question was released in favour of one Mokhtarul Hassan who had claimed the same and had the supporting documents with respect to such claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been implicated only on account of the previous enmity of P.W.1 with the father of the petitioner namely Md. Abbas Khan. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that a prosecution report was filed in which the inspecting party had signaled a Maruti Van to stop in which the Maruti Van fled away and it was ultimately found at Badshah Prasad Garage, Hindpiri in an abandoned condition and the occupants of the said van had fled away. It is also alleged that from inside the Maruti Van 66 pieces of Gamhar wood and 7 pieces of Sal wood were recovered and the seizure list was also prepared. The prosecution report named the petitioner as one of the occupant of the Maruti Van. After the prosecution report was submitted cognizance was taken by the learned court below and trial proceeded. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution whereas three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. The prosecution report named the petitioner as one of the occupant of the Maruti Van. After the prosecution report was submitted cognizance was taken by the learned court below and trial proceeded. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution whereas three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. P.W.1 Gopal Prasad Gupta, Range Officer is the informant of the case who had stated that he along with the other witnesses namely Balram Nayak, Forester (P.W.2), A. Ekka, Asstt. Conservator of Forest (P.W.3), Ramesh Trivedy, Driver, (P.W.4) and Arun Prasad, Forest Guard, (P.W.5), had tried to stop the vehicle but it had fled away and subsequently Gamhar and Sal woods were recovered from inside the van. P.W.1 has taken the name of the petitioner as one of the person who was occupying the Maruti Van. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were the members of the inspecting party who had stated about the speeding Maruti Van which was subsequently found to an abandoned condition and was loaded with Gamhar and Sal woods. However, these witnesses have not taken the name of the petitioner as one of the occupant of the Maruti Van. The entire conviction of the petitioner thus is based upon the evidence of P.W.1 and save and except P.W.1 there is no other witness who has come forward to take the name of the petitioner. It appears that the evidence of P.W.1 is basically what has been stated in the prosecution report to the effect that the petitioner along with two other persons were occupying the Maruti Van and when the inspecting party had tried to stop it they fled away. It is surprising that so many forest officials were present in the inspecting party but none of them had named the petitioner except P.W.1 as being the occupant of the Maruti Van. The evidence of P.W.1 thus having not been corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses to the occurrence and who were also members of the inspecting party is not at all trustworthy or reliable. 6. The evidence of P.W.1 thus having not been corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses to the occurrence and who were also members of the inspecting party is not at all trustworthy or reliable. 6. In such view of the matter, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 42 of the Indian Forest Act and 20 of Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act 1984, is unsustainable in the eye of law and accordingly the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2001 passed by the learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal no. 135 of 2000 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Forest Case No. 2 of 1998 are, hereby, quashed and set aside. 7. This application is allowed. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.